Appeal No. 2003-0460
Application No. 09/783,428
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings,1 and
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We do not sustain the obviousness rejection of appellant’s
claims for the reasons given below.
The sole independent claim reads as follows.
1. A fuel supply system for supplying fuel to a
direct injected outboard motor having a plurality of
vertically spaced cylinders, each of which is supplied
with fuel from a respective one of a plurality of
vertically spaced fuel injectors, said fuel supply
system including a vertically extending fuel rail
connected to said fuel injectors for supplying fuel to
said injectors, said fuel supply system having both a
pressure inlet port and a pressure return port formed at the
upper end thereof, said ports being disposed above the
uppermost fuel injector served by the fuel rail.
1 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007